[mook]

Wouldn't it be precisely because archives are important that using something known to modify the contents would be avoided?

[esseph]

> something known to modify the contents would be avoided?

Like Wikipedia?

[beej71]

No, not like that. There's a difference between a site that:

1) provides a snapshot of another site for archival purposes. 2) provides original content.

You're arguing that since encyclopedias change their content, the Library of Congress should be allowed to change the content of the materials in its stacks.

By modifying its archives, archive.today just flushed its credibility as an archival site. So what is it now?

[chrisjj]

Obviously not, since archive.org is encouraged.